Hi, Beilei, Matan, Shahaf, Viacheslav,
how about your opinion?
在 2021/6/30 17:34, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
On 6/30/2021 3:45 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
Hi, all
one question about 'rxm->hash.rss' and 'mb->hash.fdir'.
In Rx recv packets function,
'rxm->hash.rss' will report rss hash result from Rx desc.
'rxm->hash.fdir' will report filter identifier from Rx desc.
But function implementation differs from some PMDs. for example:
i40e, MLX5 report the two at the same time if pkt_flags is set,like:
******************************************
if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH) {
rxm->hash.rss =
rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxd.wb.qword0.hi_dword.rss);
}
if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
mb->hash.fdir.hi =
rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.qword3.hi_dword.fd_id);
}
********************************************
While, ixgbe only report one of the two. like:
******************************************
if (likely(pkt_flags & PKT_RX_RSS_HASH))
mb->hash.rss = rte_le_to_cpu_32(
rxdp[j].wb.lower.hi_dword.rss);
else if (pkt_flags & PKT_RX_FDIR) {
mb->hash.fdir.hash = rte_le_to_cpu_16(
rxdp[j].wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.csum) &
IXGBE_ATR_HASH_MASK;
mb->hash.fdir.id = rte_le_to_cpu_16(
rxdp[j].wb.lower.hi_dword.csum_ip.ip_id);
}
********************************************
So, what is application scenario for 'rxm->hash.rss' and 'mb->hash.fdir',
that is, why the two should be reported? How about reporting the two at the same
time?
Thanks for your reply.
Hi Connor,
mbuf->hash is union, so it is not possible to set both 'hash.rss' & 'hash.fdir'.
I assume for i40e & mlx5 case 'pkt_flags' indicate which one is valid and only
one is set in practice. Cc'ed driver mainteriners for more comment.
Thanks Ferruh,
another question, why does user need this information: rxm->hash.rss
or mb->hash.fdir.hi ? what is the function?
.
